If you had to recommend ONE book...

[triggerhappy]

Originally Posted by the.definitive

I don't see how having an English degree (or not) makes your opinion on popular literature any more or less relevant than anyone else's.

I'm one year shy of having an English degree and last time I checked that didn't make me any kind of authority on whether a book was good or not.

Mark's suggestions were contrary to the point of the thread, which was to suggest accessible books for general consumption. If he's as clever as he says he is, he'd know those that he mentioned are hardly in the spirit of the thread.

In response to your point about an English degree, of course it doesn't make you an authority on whether a book is good or not and I never made any such claim. You have, however, benefitted from four years of interaction, teaching and assessment from people who are authorities on literature, and I would hope that by the end you would be able to tell the difference between complete drivel, and entertaining novel and a masterpiece of the English language. In my opinion, Niffeneger's novel falls into the second category - I didn't ask what the greatest novel ever written was (refer to posts one and six to see what I was actually asking for).

Originally Posted by ¡Punk!

All a bit harsh from triggerhappy there.

The Time Traveller's Wife is shit

Again, refer to posts one and six.

Also,"Winner of British Book Awards: Popular Fiction Award 2006." I think that places it firmly in the scope of the question, regardless of whether you and Mark thought it was shit or not.

Originally Posted by Tacky

Calm down the both of you! All Mark meant was that was his best pick from HIS choice of books - maybe not your percpetion of what is easily accessible to everyone.

Chill, things are taken too seriously on these boards...*wanders away to county thread and smiles*

Sorry, have a balloon

[the.definitive]

Originally Posted by triggerhappy

In response to your point about an English degree, of course it doesn't make you an authority on whether a book is good or not and I never made any such claim. You have however benefitted from four years of interaction, teaching and assessment from people who are authorities on literature, andd I would hope that by the end you would be able to tell the difference between complete drivel, and entertaining novel and a masterpiece of the English language.

From what I could see Mono said the book you recommended was shit, and you responded by saying "You do realise I have an English degree?"

On first reading, that did seem like you were somehow relating having a degree to having a more valid opinion on how enjoyable the book was. No worries though, you've explained what you meant....it just didn't come across very clearly at the time.

Anyway, back to the point, I was going to write "Lolita" as a choice in here, but on re-reading some of it there the language actually makes it a bit of a difficult read.

[djtoast]

Originally Posted by the.definitive

From what I could see Mono said the book you recommended was shit, and you responded by saying "You do realise I have an English degree?"

On first reading, that did seem like you were somehow relating having a degree to having a more valid opinion on how enjoyable the book was.

Mark didn't say that he didn't enjoy it, he said it was shit; that's a qualitative statement. One that would have more merit if it were said by someone with some expertise in evaluating literature.

If you think having a degree in something doesn't make you more qualified in that area, I'll do your next filling for half whatever your dentist woulda charged

[Semprini]

Originally Posted by MarkMono

Fear & Loathing is normally a fairly good shout.

'in Las Vegas' isn't bad, but I actually preferred 'on the campaign trail '72'. Although LV is probably more accessible to the general populace, since CT'72 kinda needs (a little) background knowledge about American politics to get the full enjoyment out of it.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by triggerhappy

I asked for books accessible to the general public, not just your crazy little niche of pseudo intelligentsia.

Fear of this sort of reaction is probably why I didn't suggesty V.S. Ramachandrans and Sandra Blakeslee's "Phantoms of the brain". Probably a fairly stereotypical choice from myself and leaving myself open to similar accussations as above but a really good read, very interesting and I would challenge anyone not to at least be slightly fascinated by some of it.

Originally Posted by djtoast

You don't value education?

What has the value of an English lit degree to do with education?

Originally Posted by djtoast

Mark didn't say that he didn't enjoy it, he said it was shit; that's a qualitative statement. One that would have more merit if it were said by someone with some expertise in evaluating literature.

Since when was an expression of dislike or not enjoying something not qualitative? I think I missed the point when likes and dislikes became universaly measured on a standard scale like. That and this line of arguement is needlessly pedantic.

[MarkMono]

Originally Posted by triggerhappy

No, I just think you're an asshole.

Do you now.

Well, all I can say is that I think its a shame. I always liked you, even respected.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy

And for the record, I thought Fear and Loathing was a pile of shit. So now you have met someone who didn't enjoy it.

Its my most stolen book (Running at around seven copies now.) and the one I probably recommend to the widest variety of people. It wasn't intended to be some sort of pseudo-queer counterculture bullshit, I'd recommend it as a mainstream book that appeals to a wide audience. Its a road book, and a particularly good example of the genre. It also appeals to both the morons who laugh at the drug bits and the intelligentsia who can appreciate the semi-serious journalistic interrogation of the US of the time.

Feel feel to disagree with my assessment, but the idea that I would be trying to flex my literary muscles by recommending it is almost insulting.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy

Oh, and a final point just because I'm in the mood: check your wording in the final sentence. Maybe that's why it's relevant that I have an English Literature degree

Checked it, noticed the awkward phrasology, concluded that it was accurate to my normal mode of speech and let it stand. I could say something to the effect of "If my grammar appears so fractured as to be unreadable to you then I would question the validity of your degree." but really, you come off pretty badly here all on your own.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy

I can sort the shite writing from the good.

And again, the implication that my posts are shite because my grammar isn't perfect is pretty woeful.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy

I forgot to say. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

I can't believe that you actually used that phrase.

I meant that you genuinely seemed unaware of who you were directing your comments to from sentence to sentence, think you misunderstood.

Originally Posted by djtoast

You don't value education?

Explains a lot.

Its not like Elaines in here posting "Toast, I think you're an ass, and its nothing to do with who my partner is." so treating this as a serious question would be a little debasing to both of us.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy

Mark's suggestions were contrary to the point of the thread, which was to suggest accessible books for general consumption. If he's as clever as he says he is, he'd know those that he mentioned are hardly in the spirit of the thread.

I only had one suggestion. The other two I think you're referring to were Micks suggestions, so redirect 2/3 of your ire toward him.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy

Also,"Winner of British Book Awards: Popular Fiction Award 2006." I think that places it firmly in the scope of the question, regardless of whether you and Mark thought it was shit or not.

Both the eng lit graduates I know are Harry Potter fans as an interesting counterpoint to this.

Originally Posted by djtoast

Mark didn't say that he didn't enjoy it, he said it was shit; that's a qualitative statement. One that would have more merit if it were said by someone with some expertise in evaluating literature.

So only experts are allowed to post without qualifying their opinions? I thought the Time Travellers Wife was shite, if I was in polite company I would've described it as 'Junk food in book form' but I'm posting on the forum so I'm quite happy simply to describe it as dogshit.

Elaine liked it when she was reading it, though I seem to recall her opinion had dropped vastly by the time she finished it.

And all this over what? I said that I thought a book you liked was shit, not exactly worth all this, but I hope I've clarified enough of your misconceptions (and the odd outright mistake) for you to realise that this is all over nothing.

I'm just going to assume I caught you on a bad day..

[MarkMono]

Originally Posted by Semprini

'in Las Vegas' isn't bad, but I actually preferred 'on the campaign trail '72'. Although LV is probably more accessible to the general populace, since CT'72 kinda needs (a little) background knowledge about American politics to get the full enjoyment out of it.

Can't really compare the two in the context of this thread.

I personally still prefer Las Vegas, but comparing HST books is like comparing Hattori Hanzō swords.

[djtoast]

Originally Posted by endless psych

Since when was an expression of dislike or not enjoying something not qualitative? I think I missed the point when likes and dislikes became universaly measured on a standard scale like.

I don't like much italian opera; doesn't mean much of it isn't good. Rossini, Puccini, et al wrote some fantastic operas that are "good"; I just don't enjoy that kind of music.

i don't always know why I like or dislike what I do. I can explain my judgement of its quality.

Likes and dislikes are personal; quality in the arts can be and is successfully measured and described and is mostly agreed upon by experts.

Originally Posted by endless psych

That and this line of arguement is needlessly pedantic.

I'm sorry you feel that way, studying (not just reading/listening to) music and literature has been a source of great enjoyment for me - trying to pin down what is good about a Sonnet or a Prelude is fascinating and invigorating, far beyond just responding that you like or dislike it.



Mark - I know it looks like I'm just trying to back up Triggehappy cos she's my pal... but I haven't read the book in question, it might be terrible for all I know, I just mean that it would be more interesting to hear what about it you thought was bad. I don't believe Triggerhappy thinks something actually awful has merit where there is none.

Perhaps the author is snappy-of-phrase, but doesn't develop characters well, but has an interesting plot, but makes grammatical errors... and you have differing expectations of that kind of book that allows you each to make allowances for one area but not another, say... I dunno

Anyhow, from back in my early days on here when Hoody said "Rev is shit" I've found it hard to let such comments pass without enquiring why people say such things. Needn't be a big fight though.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by djtoast

I don't like much italian opera; doesn't mean much of it isn't good. Rossini, Puccini, et al wrote some fantastic operas that are "good"; I just don't enjoy that kind of music.

Likes and dislikes are personal; quality in the arts can be and is successfully measured and described and is mostly agreed upon by experts

I'm sorry you feel that way, studying (not just reading/listening to) music and literature has been a source of great enjoyment for me - trying to pin down what is good about a Sonnet or a Prelude is fascinating and invigorating, far

I understand there is a distinction between the notion of objective quality and liking and disliking. My objection stems from the fact you have jumped upon the notion that the book is shit with a reasonably irrelevent arguement. I think its usually fair to assume that in common usage when people say something is "shit" they mean they thought it was shit. IE they didn't like it. I fail to see the need for someone to qualify such an opinion by stating - "its perfectly well written/performed/etc but I thought it was shit" as most peoples default assumption of their meaning will be the former.

If you want to carry on an arguement based on the spurious notion that people on the internet should qualify statments of opinion so as to avoid confusing you into starting objective arguements about objective quality then feel free. I just think its rather pointless. (Particularly when your talking about objective consensus amoung experts in the arts...)

[MarkMono]

Word.

Originally Posted by djtoast

Mark - I know it looks like I'm just trying to back up Triggehappy cos she's my pal... but I haven't read the book in question, it might be terrible for all I know, I just mean that it would be more interesting to hear what about it you thought was bad. I don't believe Triggerhappy thinks something actually awful has merit where there is none.

Perhaps the author is snappy-of-phrase, but doesn't develop characters well, but has an interesting plot, but makes grammatical errors... and you have differing expectations of that kind of book that allows you each to make allowances for one area but not another, say... I dunno

Anyhow, from back in my early days on here when Hoody said "Rev is shit" I've found it hard to let such comments pass without enquiring why people say such things. Needn't be a big fight though.

Nah, you're right, a simple enquiry would've prompted a polite answer.

To give you an idea of my view, my partner is much, much smarter than me and watches Hollyoaks. I do pass judgement on the art, but not the audience. Which makes all the petty personal shit in this thread all the more shameful.

As for the Time Travellers wife, junk food in book form pretty much captures the experience perfectly for me. Last years 'Memoirs Of A Geisha'

Though thats neither here nor there, its just my opinion of the book.

[¡Punk!]

"I only had one suggestion. The other two I think you're referring to were Micks suggestions, so redirect 2/3 of your ire toward him."

I disagree. I offered one choice which, as far as I know, no-one I know who's read it has disliked and, although perhaps not the easiest read, is universally enjoyed and admired.

The spirit of the thread is about recommending one book. One that most people will like. I don't think any of the books put forward are anything but. Personally I feel most of the books put in have been, as Mark put, "junk food" books. They're the type of books people read on a train or leave in the toilet for when yer doing your big Sunday morning shit.

As I said my choice would have been The Odyssey but didn't want to appear up my own arse but the truth is it probably would be my choice as I respect people's ability to take on such books. The point that triggerhappy seems to putting across in "easily accessible" books is a bit pandering. If that was the case I could just say "any Harry Potter" book as they've sold millions so must be easily accessiblel. Fuck I enjoyed "Holes" a hell of a lot but if someone asked me to recommend one book it wouldn't be a kids book.

So fuck it, aye, Homer's Odyssey. Read it and fucking love it.

[MarkMono]

Beg your pardon, you're entirely correct.

[Pantgirl]

"Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. I love my English teacher for telling me to do this for my RPR. Love love love it

[¡Punk!]

Originally Posted by MarkMono

Beg your pardon, you're entirely correct.

Dinnae fret

[Wreakin_Havok]

yes man by danny wallace.